draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-05.txt   draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-06.txt 
Transport Working Group T. Szigeti Transport Working Group T. Szigeti
Internet-Draft J. Henry Internet-Draft J. Henry
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: January 28, 2018 F. Baker Expires: February 17, 2018 F. Baker
July 27, 2017 August 16, 2017
Diffserv to IEEE 802.11 Mapping Diffserv to IEEE 802.11 Mapping
draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-05 draft-ietf-tsvwg-ieee-802-11-06
Abstract Abstract
As internet traffic is increasingly sourced-from and destined-to As internet traffic is increasingly sourced-from and destined-to
wireless endpoints, it is crucial that Quality of Service be aligned wireless endpoints, it is crucial that Quality of Service be aligned
between wired and wireless networks; however, this is not always the between wired and wireless networks; however, this is not always the
case by default. This document specifies a set Differentiated case by default. This document specifies a set Differentiated
Services Code Point (DSCP) to IEEE 802.11 User Priority (UP) mappings Services Code Point (DSCP) to IEEE 802.11 User Priority (UP) mappings
to reconcile the marking recommendations offered by the IETF and the to reconcile the marking recommendations offered by the IETF and the
IEEE so as to maintain consistent QoS treatment between wired and IEEE so as to maintain consistent QoS treatment between wired and
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2018. This Internet-Draft will expire on February 17, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 22, line 37 skipping to change at page 22, line 37
5.3. Upstream DSCP-Passthrough at the Wireless Access Point 5.3. Upstream DSCP-Passthrough at the Wireless Access Point
It is generally NOT RECOMMENDED to pass through DSCP markings from It is generally NOT RECOMMENDED to pass through DSCP markings from
unauthenticated and unauthorized devices, as these are typically unauthenticated and unauthorized devices, as these are typically
considered untrusted sources. considered untrusted sources.
When business requirements and/or technical constraints and/or When business requirements and/or technical constraints and/or
administrative policies require QoS markings to be passed through at administrative policies require QoS markings to be passed through at
the wireless edge, then it is RECOMMENDED to pass through Layer 3 the wireless edge, then it is RECOMMENDED to pass through Layer 3
DSCP markings (over Layer 2 [IEEE.802.11-2016] UP markings) in the DSCP markings (over Layer 2 [IEEE.802.11-2016] UP markings) in the
upstream direction, for the following reasons: upstream direction, with the exception of CS6 and CS7 (as will be
discussed further), for the following reasons:
o [RFC2474], [RFC2475] and [RFC8100] all allow for hosts to set DSCP o [RFC2474], [RFC2475] and [RFC8100] all allow for hosts to set DSCP
markings to achieve an end-to-end differentiated service markings to achieve an end-to-end differentiated service
o [IEEE.802.11-2016] does not specify that UP markings are to be o [IEEE.802.11-2016] does not specify that UP markings are to be
used to affect QoS treatment over wired IP networks used to affect QoS treatment over wired IP networks
o Most present wireless device operating systems generate UP values o Most present wireless device operating systems generate UP values
by the same method as described in Section 2.2 (i.e. by using the by the same method as described in Section 2.2 (i.e. by using the
3 MSB of the encapsulated 6-bit DSCP); then, at the access point, 3 MSB of the encapsulated 6-bit DSCP); then, at the access point,
skipping to change at page 23, line 16 skipping to change at page 23, line 17
o A practical implementation benefit is also realized by passing o A practical implementation benefit is also realized by passing
through the DSCP set by wireless client devices, as enabling through the DSCP set by wireless client devices, as enabling
applications to mark DSCP is much more prevalent and accessible to applications to mark DSCP is much more prevalent and accessible to
programmers of applications running on wireless device platforms, programmers of applications running on wireless device platforms,
vis-a-vis trying to explicitly set UP values, which requires vis-a-vis trying to explicitly set UP values, which requires
special hooks into the wireless device operating system and/or special hooks into the wireless device operating system and/or
hardware device drivers, many of which do not support such hardware device drivers, many of which do not support such
functionality functionality
CS6 and CS7 are exceptions to this pass through recommendation
because wireless hosts SHOULD NOT use them (see Section 5.1) and
traffic with those two markings poses a threat to operation of the
wired network (see Section 8.2). CS6 and CS7 SHOULD NOT be passed
through to the wired network in the upstream direction unless the
access point has been specifically configured to do that by a network
administrator or operator.
5.4. Upstream DSCP Marking at the Wireless Access Point 5.4. Upstream DSCP Marking at the Wireless Access Point
An alternative option to mapping is for the administrator to treat An alternative option to mapping is for the administrator to treat
the wireless edge as the edge of the Diffserv domain and explicitly the wireless edge as the edge of the Diffserv domain and explicitly
set (or reset) DSCP markings in the upstream direction according to set (or reset) DSCP markings in the upstream direction according to
administrative policy. This option is RECOMMENDED over mapping, as administrative policy. This option is RECOMMENDED over mapping, as
this typically is the most secure solution, as the network this typically is the most secure solution, as the network
administrator directly enforces the Diffserv policy across the IP administrator directly enforces the Diffserv policy across the IP
network (versus an application developer and/or the wireless endpoint network (versus an application developer and/or the wireless endpoint
device operating system developer, who may be functioning completely device operating system developer, who may be functioning completely
 End of changes. 5 change blocks. 
5 lines changed or deleted 14 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/